Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #106836

Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'?

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 23:57 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 09/06/2024 22:58, wij wrote:
> [To Ben:]
> > Do you still insist 0.999...∉[0,1)? LOL.
> 
> 	Before anyone "insists" on either that or its contrary, you need
> to explain your notation.  If you are talking about conventional "Real"
> numbers, then the proof is straightforward and known to everyone with a
> decent education in mathematics.  If you're talking about some different
> "Wij-numbers", then no-one here can tell you what their properties are
> until you define them properly, and your various attempts to do that over
> the years have been long on assertions and short on axioms and proofs.
> Adding "LOL" to everything you think you understand better than Ben is
> unhelpful.  For my part, I can only repeat earlier suggestions that you
> read up about "Surreal" and "Hyperreal" numbers [Wiki is your friend];
> they solve many of the problems you seem to have with "Real" numbers.

Thanks to Richard Damon, I changed my goal to rectify "conventional real". I was
only interested in MY real but forced to deal with RD's real. Since by the end
, they should the same, so I took the challenge. 
Honestly, I am not good in mathematics (I only read what I feel need to) but 
seems good enough for my purpose.
Maybe I could see what "Surreal" ("Hyperreal" should be the same) solves and
see how my real can (must) solve that problem. But I don't have time for that.

> > 					   This time, suggesting you are very
> > knowledgeable that "Determine n is even" not NPC needs proof...LOL again.
> 
> 	Again, before you disrespect Ben, perhaps you should think about
> what he said to you.  Generations of undergraduates have been asked what
> they could deduce about NPC *if* P == NP.  In the light of that, your
> assumption that your problem "p" is not NPC amounts to assuming P /= NP,
> so it's not surprising [but is unhelpful] that P /= NP follows from it.
> [Hint:  Think about how you could reduce an instance of some "difficult"
> decision problem to a (trivial) instance of "p".]

My best guess is that the phrase in my proof is not clear. It had been modified
from the reply by immibis several days before.

---------------------
This file is intended a proof that ℙ≠ℕℙ. The contents may be updated anytime.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/PNP-proof-en.txt/download
...[cut]
   Proof2: Let p="Given a number n, determine whether or not n is even". If
          ℙ=ℕℙ, then all the existing proofs of p∉ℕℙℂ are false proofs (because
          all ℕℙ problems including ℕℙℂ will be mutually Ptime reducible). Since
          the proofs that p∉ℕℙℂ are true, ℙ≠ℕℙ is concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 22:11 +0800
  Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 22:17 +0800
  Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-09 20:55 +0100
    Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 05:58 +0800
      Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-06-09 23:57 +0100
        Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 08:06 +0800
          Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2024-06-10 14:54 +0100
            Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 22:33 +0800
      Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-10 00:36 +0100
        Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 08:12 +0800
          Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-10 21:50 +0100
            Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:37 +0800
              Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-06-11 00:32 -0600
                Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 16:01 +0800
              Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-11 11:43 +0100
        Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 22:26 +0800
          Re: Is this ℙ≠ℕℙ proof 'humiliating'? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-10 21:45 +0100

csiph-web